The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, April 18, 2014

by Dennis Prager In his column last week, Charles Krauthammer crossed a line. He
declared the American left totalitarian. He is correct. Totalitarianism
is written into the left’s DNA.Krauthammer wrote about a left-wing petition “bearing more than
110,000 signatures delivered to the [Washington] Post demanding a ban on
any article questioning global warming.”He concluded:“I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly
illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of
ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping
debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all
opposition. The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian.”America is engaged in a civil war — thank God, a non-violent one, but
a civil war nonetheless. It is as divided as it was during the Civil
War in the 19th century. The issue then was slavery — a huge moral
divide, of course. But today, the country is divided by opposite views
about much more than one major issue. The left and right are divided by
their views of morality, politics, society, religion, the individual and
the very nature of America.The left seeks to, as candidate Barack Obama promised five days
before his first election, “fundamentally transform the United States of
America.”That is what the left is doing. There is almost no area of American
life in which the left’s influence is not transformative, and ultimately
destructive.Beginning with this column I will periodically, perhaps regularly,
devote this space to that transformation and destruction. My reason for
doing so is that most Americans, including more than a few Republicans
and more than a few Democrats, simply do not know what the left is doing
to their country.So, here is some of what the left has done in the last week or two.—The left-wing directors of Mozilla, the parent company of the
browser Firefox, compelled their CEO, Brendan Eich, to resign after he
refused to recant his support for maintaining the man-woman definition
of marriage. Even though his gay employees acknowledged how fairly he
treated them individually and as couples, the mere fact that he believes
that marriage is between a man and a woman rendered him unacceptable as
an employee of Mozilla/Firefox. (For more details, see my column of
last week, “Uninstall Firefox.”)

The Wall Street Journal condemned Mozilla. The New York Times has not taken a position.—Brandeis University rescinded its invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
perhaps the world’s foremost activist on behalf of women in the Islamic
world.Hirsi Ali, an African woman born into a Muslim family and raised
Muslim, who now teaches at Harvard, was scheduled to receive an honorary
degree at the forthcoming Brandeis graduation ceremony. Brandeis
rescinded its invitation after protests led by a Muslim student and the
Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamist organization, erupted
over Hirsi Ali’s criticism of the way women are treated in many parts
of the Muslim world.The Wall Street Journal condemned Brandeis. The New York Times has not taken a position.—The University of Michigan canceled a showing of the documentary
“Honor Diaries.” The film features nine women who are either Muslim or
come from a Muslim country. They speak about honor killings, female
genital mutilation, forced marriages at young ages, and the denial of
education to women in Muslim communities. They praise moderate Muslims.
But the University of Michigan cancelled the film lest a non-moderate
Muslim organization, CAIR again, label the university “Islamophobic.”—Six weeks ago, a University of Wisconsin student released a video he
had made of a guest lecturer in the freshman general education course
“Education 130: Individual and Society.” The lecturer, the political and
organizing director for Service Employees International Union Local
150, delivered a diatribe, with obscenities, against conservatives,
whites and Republicans. Last week. When confronted with the evidence
that classrooms at their university were being politicized, the faculty
of the University of Wisconsin reacted with indignation — at the student
who made the video. And then the faculty passed a resolution demanding
that the university ban recording any of its classes.It’s hard to blame the faculty. Given the intellectual shallowness
and the left-wing politics that pervade so many liberal arts classes,
the University of Wisconsin faculty has every reason to fear allowing
the public to know what professors say in class.—Today is the cutoff date for public reactions to the California
Supreme Court’s ethics advisory committee’s proposal to forbid
California judges from affiliating with the Boy Scouts, which the left
deems anti-gay. Given the Left’s animosity to traditional value-based
institutions, it is not surprising that it loathes the Boy Scouts. What
is remarkable — actually, frightening — is how easy it has been for the
left to make it illegal for a judge to be a leader in the Boy Scouts. This is the now case in 22 states. It will soon be the case in California as well.This was just one week — and only selected examples — in the left’s ongoing transformation of America.Dennis Prager Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dennis-prager/what-the-left-did-last-week/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Recently,
I met a Syrian Salafist while speaking to Leaders of Democracy Fellows
about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Islam and human rights
violations in Syria.The individual who lives in Syria,
and who seems to sympathize with Jubhat Al- Nusrah (Al-Nusrah Front),
drew several distinctions between Islamic objectives of the global Jihad
movement, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and Jubhat
Al-Nusrah.The argument was that these
powerful movements in Syria and beyond attempt to create an Islamic
state anchored in Shari’a law, the teachings of Islam, Muhammad, and
Allah. But the difference between Jubhat Al-Nusrah and ISIL, according
to the person, was that the mission of the Jubhat Al-Nusrah aims at only
establishing Islamic social order and an Islamic state in Syria.
Whether this mission spreads to other countries is not a part of their
objectives, though other countries can adopt this political Islamic
platform if they desire.On the other hand, the objectives
and mission of ISIL is a return to the Caliphate system and
establishment of an Islamic state throughout the region. In other words,
creating an Islamic state and Shari’a law-based government in Syria or
in Iraq is not sufficient and will not fulfill the desire of God,
Muhammad, and Islamic teachings.Currently, we can contend
that Syrian oppositional groups are functionally dominated by Jihadists
from around the world, other Islamist groups, and external groups
attempting to create an Islamic order and pursue their own ideological
goals. Regarding these Islamic movements,
my major question is on where human rights stand for them, regardless of
the minor or significant differences between these Islamist
oppositional groups.Recently, a seven-year-old boy died
because fighters believed him to be an apostate. According to the
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a 15-year-old Syrian boy was also
killed in the northern city of Aleppo in front of his parents because
the Islamist groups believed what the boy said was heretical.Some of the proponents of Islam and
Islamic laws would point out that the ideology and religion of Islam
sit at the heart of human rights standards and are totally compatible
with the modern notion of human rights. But when I delve into the issue,
and going into the nuances and details of the question, they seem to
dodge answering. How can Islam be compatible with a modern notion of
human rights and gender equality, when social and legal laws of Allah’s
words in Quran, depict women as inferior to men in every aspect?Article three of the universal
declaration of human rights, states that “Everyone has the right to
life, liberty and security of person.” But in Islamic countries, a
person who rejects and abandons Islam has no right to life. According to
Islam, unbelievers commit the gravest sin in Islam.

While article four of the universal
declaration of human rights says “one shall be held in slavery or
servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their
forms,” slavery is officially recognized and accepted in Quran.Article five states that “No one
shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.” Cases of stoning, lashings, and other violent
acts are rampant in Islamic countries.How can Islam be compatible with
human rights when, according to Muslims and the Quran, Allah
specifically states in the Quran that a woman’s testimony in a court of
law is considered half the value to that of a man?“And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women.” [Qur'an (2:282)]A Muslim told me that scientific
data shows women’s logical and speaking neurological center in brain are
at the same place, and as a result, they are more forgetful than
men! And so, this is why God made their testimony worth half. I was
totally confounded and baffled by this ungrounded logic.How can Islam be compatible with
human rights when according to Muslims and the Quran, Allah states that
women inherit less than men in several instances?

They ask thee for a
legal decision. Say: Allah directs about those who leave no descendants
or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but
no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If a woman, who left no
child, Her brother takes her inheritance: If there are two sisters, they
shall have two-thirds of the inheritance: if there are brothers and
sisters, the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah
make clear to you , lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.
(Quran 4:176)

All Muslims are expected to follow
and implement the rules of Islamic inheritance clearly stated in the
Quran, verbatim words of God, accordingly.In addition, how can the ideology
of Islam be in line with human rights when abandoning Islam triggers
punishments, including execution? Or does the law that allows a man to
marry four wives respect the rights of women? Do these Islamic laws
comply with the article one of the universal declaration of human rights
that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one
another in a spirit of brotherhood”?The aforementioned laws reveal how
women are restricted and seen as inferior. While men can marry any women
from any other religion, Muslim women are not allowed to marry a
non-Muslim.There are also the rights of an
accused person to a fair trial, which is mentioned in the Universal
Declaration of Human rights. While a women’s testimony is worth half,
non-Muslims are not permitted to testify against Muslims.These are only samples of the
contradictions and incompatibilities between the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and Islamic laws and doctrines. The critical phenomenon
is that as long as the Quran is perceived to be the words of God—and
hence should be implemented word by word— and as long Islam views itself
as part of the state, I think there can never be compatibility between
the modern notion of human rights and Islam.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist and
scholar, is president of the International American Council and he
serves on the board of Harvard International Review at Harvard
University. Rafizadeh is also a senior fellow at Nonviolence
International Organization based in Washington DC and a member of the
Gulf project at Columbia University.Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/islam-and-human-rights/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

A
leaflet distributed on Passover eve in the city of Dontesk in the
Russian-speaking eastern region of Ukraine is reviving memories of
pogroms of a century ago for the 17,000 Jews resident there.Ynet news provides details:

The
leaflet, signed by Chairman of Donetsk's temporary government Denis
Pushilin, was distributed to Jews near the Donetsk synagogue and later
in other areas of the city where pro-Russians activists have declared
Donetsk as an independent "people's republic", defying an ultimatum from
Kiev to surrender.The leaflet was written in Russian and had Russia's national symbol on it, as well as the Donetsk People's Republic insignia.

"Dear
Ukraine citizens of Jewish nationality," the flyer began, "due to the
fact that the leaders of the Jewish community of Ukraine supported
Bendery Junta," a reference to Stepan Bandera, the leader of the
Ukrainian nationalist movement which fought for Ukrainian independence
at the end of World War II, "and oppose the pro-Slavic People's Republic
of Donetsk, (the interim government) has decided that all citizens of
Jewish descent, over 16 years of age and residing within the republic's
territory are required to report to the Commissioner for Nationalities
in the Donetsk Regional Administration building and register." The
leaflet detailed what type of documents the Jewish citizens would need
to supply: "ID and passport are required to register your Jewish
religion, religious documents of family members, as well as documents
establishing the rights to all real estate property that belongs to you,
including vehicles."If
the message was not made clear enough, the leaflet further stipulated
the consequences that would come to those who failed to abide by the new
demands: "Evasion of registration will result in citizenship revoke and
you will be forced outside the country with a confiscation of
property."

Haaretz,
the left-leaning Israeli newspaper, casts some doubt as whether this
leaflet might have been produced by Pro-Ukraine forces as a kind of
black op:

…according to the Novosti Donbassa news
agency… the notice was distributed by "three unidentified men wearing
balaclavas and carrying the flag of the Russian Federation." The notice
was reported by members of the Jewish community of Donetsk.

Novosti Donbassa speculated that the men involved were provocateurs who
"tried to provoke a conflict, then to blame the attack on separatists."

Either
way, the leaflet reminds us that hatred of Jews is a longstanding and
still-virulent feature of life in Ukraine and much of Eastern Europe,
once home to a substantial portion of world Jewry, and now just a
remnant of the Holocaust. Ukraine supplied SS troops to the Nazis and
was among the most enthusiastic locations for the Holocaust during Nazi
occupation. The Christian Holy Week/Passover period was the worst time
of the year for persecution of Jews, usually culminating on Good Friday.
The timing of this leaflet seems intended to revive these memories.

A new Danish statistical study
finds that “Muslims [are] 218 percent more criminal in second
generation than first.” While some of these crimes are clearly related
to Islam – such as attacks on Muslim apostates to Christianity – others, such as rampant theft against non-Muslims, would appear banal, until one realizes that even robbery and plunder are justified byIslamic doctrine – as one U.K. Muslim cleric once clearly said. The
interesting question here is why second-generation Muslims, who are
presumably more Westernized than their Muslim parents, are also more
“radical.” Lest one dismiss this phenomenon as a product of economics
or some other “grievance” against European host nations, the fact is,
even in America, where Muslims are much better assimilated than in
Europe, young Muslims are turning to “radicalism.” For example, some time back, Attorney General Eric Holder said
that “the threat [of terrorism] has changed … to worrying about people
in the United States, American citizens – raised here, born here, and
who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become
radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were
born.”Around the same time, Sue Myrick, then a member of Congress, wrote a particularly candid letter on “radicalization” to President Obama:

For
many years we lulled ourselves with the idea that radicalization was
not happening inside the United Sates. We believed American Muslims were
immune to radicalization because, unlike the European counterparts,
they are socially and economically well-integrated into society. There
had been warnings that these assumptions were false but we paid them no
mind. Today there is no doubt that radicalization is taking place inside
America. The strikingly accelerated rate of American Muslims arrested
for involvement in terrorist activities since May 2009 makes this fact
self-evident.

Myrick
named several American Muslims as examples of those who, while
“embodying the American dream, at least socio-economically,” were still
“radicalized,” astutely adding, “The truth is that if grievances were
the sole cause of terrorism, we would see daily acts by Americans who
have lost their jobs and homes in this economic downturn.”Quite
so. Yet, though Myrick’s observations were limited to the domestic
scene, they raise the following, more cosmic, question: if American
Muslims, who enjoy Western benefits – including democracy, liberty,
prosperity, and freedom of expression – are still being
radicalized, why do we insist that the importation of these same Western
benefits to the Muslim world will eliminate its even more indigenous or
authentic form of “radicalization”?After
all, the mainstream position evoked by most politicians maintains that
all U.S. sacrifices in the Muslim world (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) will
pay off once Muslims discover how wonderful Western ways are, and
happily slough off their “Islamist” veneer, which, as the theory goes,
is a product of – you guessed it – a lack of democracy, liberty,
prosperity, and freedom of expression.Yet here are American and European Muslims, immersed in the bounties of the West, and still do
they turn to violent jihad. Why think their counterparts, who are born
and raised in the Muslim world, where Islam permeates every aspect of
life, will respond differently?In
fact, far from eliminating “radicalization,” Western values can
actually exacerbate Islamic tendencies – hence why second-generation
“Westernized” Muslims are also becoming more “radicalized” than their
parents.Some
already known that Western concessions to Islam – in the guise of
multiculturalism, “cultural sensitivity,” political correctness, and
self-censorship – only bring out the worst of Islam’s “schoolyard bully.”
Yet even some of the most prized aspects of Western civilization –
personal freedom, rule of law, human dignity – when articulated through
an Islamic framework, have the capacity to “radicalize” Muslims.Consider:
the West’s commitment to the law as supreme arbitrator, for the
Westernized Muslim becomes a commitment to establish and enforce Islamic
law, sharia; the West’s commitment to democracy, for the Westernized
Muslim becomes a commitment to theocracy, including an anxious impulse
to resurrect the caliphate; Western notions of human dignity and pride,
when articulated through an Islamic paradigm (which sees only fellow
Muslims as equals) induces rage
when Muslims – Palestinians, Afghanis, Iraqis, etc. – are seen under
Western infidel dominion; Western notions of autonomy and personal
freedom have even helped “Westernize” the notion of jihad into an
individual duty, though it has traditionally been held by sharia as a
communal duty.In
short, a set of noble principles articulated through a foreign paradigm
can lead to abominations. In this case, the better principles of
Western civilization are being devoured, absorbed, and regurgitated into
something equally potent, though from the other end of the spectrum.Put
differently, just as a stress on human freedom, human dignity, and
universal justice produces good humans, rearticulating these same
concepts through an Islamic framework that qualifies them with the word
“Muslim” – Muslim freedom, Muslim dignity, and Muslim justice – leads to what is being called “radicalization.”

The problem of Islam in public
schools has been allowed to snowball to vast proportions... not hundreds
but thousands of British schools have come under the influence of
Muslim radicals.Bains was also instructed to stop teaching citizenship classes
because they were deemed to be "un-Islamic," and to introduce Islamic
studies into the curriculum, even though Saltley is a non-faith school.Schools should not be allowed to become "silos of segregation." — Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister

British authorities say they have widened their investigation into an
alleged plot by Muslim fundamentalists to Islamize public schools in
England and Wales.The expanded probe now encompasses at least 25 schools in Birmingham,
up from four initially. Investigators are also looking into new
allegations that Muslim extremists have infiltrated schools in other
British cities, including Bradford and Manchester.The plot—dubbed Operation Trojan Horse—consists
of a strategy to wrest control of schools by ousting non-Muslim head
teachers and staff at secular state schools and replacing them with
individuals who will run the schools according to strict Islamic
principles.A copy of a strategy document outlining the plot was sent to the
Birmingham City Council in November 2013, but its existence did not
become known to the public until March 2014, when it was leaked to the London-based newspaper, the Sunday Times.Although police are still working to determine the authenticity of
the document, what remains beyond dispute is that Muslim hardliners are
subverting the British school system in ever greater numbers.Since Operation Trojan Horse came to light, British authorities have been inundated
with more than 200 whistleblower complaints in Birmingham
alone—including emails, letters and telephone calls from parents,
teachers and school leaders—about the imposition of conservative Islamic
practices in primary, secondary and community schools, as well as in
publicly-funded academies.

The
former headmaster of Saltley School in Birmingham resigned following a
plot by Islamist fanatics to oust him. (Image source: Screenshot from
BBC video)

Allegations include the takeover of school governing bodies by
Islamic fundamentalists, harassment and squeezing-out of non-Muslim
teachers, forcing female students to cover their hair, banning
sex-education classes, bullying female staff, and segregating boys and
girls in classrooms.Over the past several weeks, Ofsted,
the official agency for inspecting British schools, has carried out
surprise inspections of at least 18 schools in Birmingham, under orders
from the British Department for Education. This is in addition to a
separate investigation being conducted by the Birmingham City Council.
The initial findings of these investigations are to be published in May,
with full reports following in July.But critics say the schools inspected so far represent only the tip
of the iceberg. The problem of Islam in public schools has been allowed
to snowball to vast proportions—not dozens, nor hundreds, they say,
but thousands of British schools have come under the influence of
Muslim radicals—and they accuse the British government of willful
complacency driven by blind obeisance to multiculturalism.One such critic is Michael White, a former teacher at Birmingham's
Park View School, which is at the center of the controversy. White
recently told the BBC
that concerns of an "Islamic takeover plot" were first raised more than
20 years ago, but they were ignored by government officials obsessed
with enforcing political correctness.White said he was "forced out" after he challenged attempts by the
Muslim governors of the school to ban sex education and stop the
teaching of non-Islamic faiths in religious education classes.Another critic, Birmingham's Labour MP Khalid Mahmood, says the
majority of the governors at the school are Salafists and Wahhabis,
Muslim hardliners who are "trying to import their views into classrooms
and the day to day running of the school." In an interview with the Birmingham Mail,
Mahmood said he believes British education officials have previously
resisted getting involved in disputes with Muslim schools for fear of
being called racist or anti-Islamic.Ofsted is now investigating allegations that Muslim hardliners at the
school are indoctrinating pupils by—among other tactics—teaching them
to praise the anti-Western sermons of firebrand Muslim preachers such as
the late Anwar al-Awlaki, who planned terrorist operations for the
Islamist group al Qaeda. They are also accused of misusing £70,000
(€85,000; $120,000) of taxpayers' money to purchase playground
loudspeakers to call pupils to Islamic prayers.Muslim school officials insist the allegations are unfounded and
motivated by Islamophobia. "There is no evidence for any of these things
whatsoever," one of the governors of the school, Tahir Alam, told BBC Radio.
"I believe it is a witch-hunt based on all sorts of false allegations
which have been repeated over many weeks. I also believe it is motivated
by anti-Muslim, anti-Islam sentiment that is also sort of feeding this
frenzy," he added.But similar allegations abound at other schools in Birmingham. The head teacher of the Saltley School was forced out after he opposed plans by the Muslim governors of the school to scrap sex education and allow only halal food.Balwant Bains, who is of Sikh origin, was also instructed to stop
teaching citizenship classes because they were deemed to be
"un-Islamic," and to introduce Islamic studies into the curriculum, even
though Saltley is a non-faith school.Bains says he was "bullied and intimidated" in the months before he
left Saltley School in November 2013. After Muslim governors overturned
his decision to expel a Muslim pupil found with a knife, Bains was also
targeted in an anonymous text message that branded him a "racist,
Islamophobic head teacher."Bains resigned after an Ofsted report concluded he had a
"dysfunctional" relationship with the school's governors. In recent
months, five non-Muslim governors of the Saltley School have resigned,
leaving 12 Muslim governors out of a total of 14.This is not the first time the Saltley School has been linked to
Muslim extremists. Previously, an "achievement mentor" at the school was
arrested for his involvement in a terror cell which planned to behead a
British soldier. Zahoor Iqbal was jailed for seven years in 2008 for
supplying equipment for terrorist acts and supplying money or property
for use in terrorism.Another whistleblower told the Sunday Times
that the new Muslim head teacher at Ladypool Primary School in
Birmingham stopped Christmas celebrations after her appointment in
September 2013.The teacher, Huda Aslam, who was recruited from an Islamic secondary
school near Ladypool, told teachers organizing last year's Christmas
party that Santa Claus was banned from the school and that there would
be no presents and "no mention" of Jesus being the son of God.Fresh allegations have also emerged in Manchester and Bradford. At
Laisterdyke Business and Enterprise College and Carlton Bolling College,
both in Bradford, there are claims that head teachers have come under
pressure from Muslim governors to introduce Islamic practices.Meanwhile, Birmingham's ten MPs have united to demand that Education
Secretary Michael Gove launch a full inquiry into Operation Trojan
Horse. The MPs from all three main parties presented a united front in a
joint letter urging Gove to establish a cross-party review with the city council to build a "full picture" of what has happened.Amid mounting criticism for failing to act swiftly over the crisis, Gove said
on April 13 that he would send teams of inspectors into dozens of state
schools and order them to fail any schools where "religious
conservatism is getting in the way of learning and a balanced
curriculum."Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has also backed the investigations.
Schools should not be allowed to become "silos of segregation," he said.The investigation will be carried out in phases, with a second wave
of snap inspections of state and private schools taking place later in
the year, once Ofsted determines the scale of the problem.Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.
He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based
Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4273/uk-islamic-takeover-plot Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

As thousands of Jewish visitors stream in to visit the Cave of the Patriarchs to celebrate Passover holiday, dozens of rioters throw stones at soldiers in West Bank city.

IDF troops take up position during clashes with Palestinian

stonethrowers in Hebron. Sept. 22, 2013. Photo: REUTERS

Violent clashes broke out between the IDF and Palestinian activists in Hebron on Thursday on the sidelines of a demonstration to mark Prisoner Day that took place in a section of the West Bank city under control of the Palestinian Authority.The IDF said that some fifty Palestinians threw stones at soldiers stationed by the Policeman’s Checkpoint in the city. Security forces responded with riot dispersal means, including tear gas.

The clashes took place as thousands of visitors streamed to the Cave of the Patriarchs and other Jewish areas of the city under Israeli control so they could celebrate the Passover holiday. On Wednesday evening, the IDF injured seven Palestinians in Hebron when a riot broke out in the city. The IDF said that dozens of Palestinians demonstrated and threw stones at an IDF post situated between the Jewish settlement of the city and the rest of the Palestinian city. During its attempts to disperse the demonstrators using riot dispersal methods, seven Palestinians were injured, the army confirmed. Earlier on Wednesday, hundreds of Palestinians threw stones and lit fire crackers at police upon opening the main entrance to the Temple Mount. On Monday, Passover eve, Baruch Mizrachi was killed while driving on a highway near Hebron. The perpetrator of that attack has not yet been apprehended. Daniel Eisenbud contributed to this report.

"Both materially, and in essence,
sovereignty unconditionally and always belongs to Allah." — Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister, Turkey.What is surprising is that so many Western politicians, including
EU-minded ones, apparently still ignore what the consequences could be
of such an ideology. Do they really assume it could never happen to
them?

Once again, Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is – although ineffectively – cracking down on social media, most notably Twitter, which public outrage forced him to reinstate, and the latest municipal elections were again ridden with intimidation and fraud.On September 12, 1980, the Turkish military cracked down on religious
opposition movements that challenged the secular state, and took power
over the country. What stood out during these events was that Western
nations, with political structures vigorously opposed to military
involvement in civil politics, were actually relieved by the military's
action[1]. After all, one year earlier the secular and allied state of Iran had transformed into a theocratic and hostile nation.Over time, however, a worrying dynamic revealed itself: The Western
view of Islamic religious political movements changed, while the core
ideology and intentions of these movements did not. This phenomenon
coincided with the "New Left" consolidating its "March through the
institutions," referring to its takeover of the academy and journalism.[2]The West stopped seeing political Islam as an expansionist, possibly
antagonistic, ideology, and started actively to aid the consolidation of
Islamist power, particularly in Turkey. The EU stated that if Turkey
were ever going to join it, the country would have to abolish the
influence the Turkish military had over civil politics. It is reasonable
that the EU did not want a member state with a military that could undo
a democracy at will. But it was unreasonable of the EU to think that
the only way a democracy could be undone was by a military, or, in the
instance of Turkey, that of the then-secular
Turkish military. The EU may also have been naïve to dismiss out of
hand the claims of the Turkish military that Islamist doctrine was
inherently anti-Western.True, modern Turkish Islamists, with the current Erdogan government
as a prime example, have started out by preaching their theocratic
intentions in more discrete and innocent-sounding ways. Erdogan for
example said: "All the schools will become [madrassa-like religious] Imam Hatip schools"[3] and "I am the Imam of Istanbul"[4],
but it is not as if Erdogan is a master of disguise. The truth was out
there for those not taken by wishful thinking. Erdogan, during his time
as mayor of Istanbul, 1994-1998, had said
that "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you
get off." What is somewhat less known is that Erdogan stated in 1998:
"Our reference [guide] is Islam. Our only goal is an Islamic state. They
can never intimidate us. If the skies and the earth open up, if storms
blow on us, if the lava of volcanoes flow on us, we will never change
our way. My guide is Islam. If I cannot live according to Islam, why
live at all? [Turk], Kurd, Arab, Caucasian cannot be differentiated;
because these peoples are united under the roof of Islam."[5]

Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2009. (Image source: World Economic Forum)

What is even less known is that during the same period he repeatedly
and elaborately explained why his ideology is inherently dictatorial.On video[6],
Erdogan was saying: "You cannot be both secular and a Muslim. You will
either be a Muslim, or secular. When both are together, they create
reverse magnetism [they repel one another]. For them to exist together
is not a possibility. Therefore, it is not possible for a person who
says, 'I am a Muslim' to go on and say, 'I am secular, too.' And why is
that? Because Allah, the creator of the Muslim, has absolute power and
rule.... When [does the sovereignty belong to the people]? It is only
when they go to the polls [every five years] that sovereignty belongs to
the people. But both materially, and in essence, sovereignty
unconditionally and always belongs to Allah."Although statements such as that might sound arbitrary and irrelevant
to Western readers, they are not. The overarching theological drive of
many Islamists is – as for example re-emphasized
by one of the founder fathers of modern political Islam, Sayyid Qutb –
the implementation of the sovereignty of Allah on earth, Hakimiyyat Allah. The Sovereignty of Allah, a divinely mandated set of laws, known as Sharia,
may not be undone by men: all sovereignty of the people is inferior to
the sovereignty of Allah. This means that Islamist doctrine does not
allow Islamist rulers to be removed from power democratically. Such a
view makes such a form of government inherently autocratic.Erdogan's views should not be surprising. He was an apprentice of Necmettin Erbakan, the founding father of what is basically the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood, known as Milli Görüs. What is
surprising, however, is that so many Western politicians, including
EU-minded ones, apparently still choose to ignore what the consequences
could be of such an ideology. Do they really assume it could never come
to them?[1] Henk Driessen, In het huis van de islam, p.361[2] Martin Bosma, De schijn elite van de Valsemunters, p. 83[3]Cumhuriyet, Sep. 17, 1994[4]Hurriyet, Jan. 8, 1995[5] From his Dec. 6, 1997 speech, Hurriyet, Sep. 24, 1998[6] Translation of Turkish text derived from Facebook Page of anti-Islamist Muslim commentator Tarek Fatah.Timon DiasSource: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4265/erdogan-theological-justification Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Last Thursday, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee convened what appeared to be a most timely – and much-needed – hearing. It’s title was “Keeping the lights on: Are we doing enough to ensure the reliability and security of the electric grid?” Unfortunately, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, the answer we got from industry and regulator witnesses and legislators alike was an unfounded, and profoundly misleading, “Yes.”

Just about everyone seemed to be toeing the line laid down by Gerry Cauley, the president of what amounts to an electric utilities trade association called the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, better known as NERC. It might as well stand for the No Electric Resiliency Cabal.

The see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil tone of the Energy Committee hearing was all the more remarkable for it coming almost exactly a year after an attack on the Metcalf transformer substation outside San Jose, California. That event demonstrated that we are clearly not “doing enough to ensure the reliability and security of the electric grid.”After all, the Metcalf attack very nearly destroyed at least seventeen (and possibly all twenty-one) of the substation’s high-voltage transformers – assets that are indispensable building-blocks of the electric grid and effectively irreplaceable in the short- to medium-term. The effect would have been not only to turn off the lights in Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay area for protracted periods. According to the chairman of the Energy Committee, Sen. Mary Landrieu, the Metcalf assault was “the most serious attack ever” on the U.S. electricity system and reportedly came “very close to causing the shut-down of a large portion of the Western grid.”Yet, the principal focus of the hearing seemed to be “shooting the messenger,” in this case Wall Street Journal reporter Rebecca Smith, rather than squarely addressing aspects of the grid’s acute vulnerability that she has identified in a series of front-page articles.Specifically, the assembled legislators and witnesses spent most of their time complaining that Ms. Smith had exposed the fact that the grid had been attacked a year ago in a highly professional operation – a fact that had largely been concealed from public view. They were also distressed that she had obtained and published information obtained from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) indicating that the destruction of a small number of such substations would crater the grid.The rest of the exchanges between legislators and those testifying – including, in addition to Cauley and other industry representatives, Cheryl LaFleur, FERC’s acting chairman – amounted to a concerted effort to “circle the wagons.” Congratulations were offered all around for the splendid way in which the energy sector has dealt with physical, cyber and other threats, promulgating standards and otherwise ensuring grid resiliency.The only trouble is that, as the Metcalf incident demonstrated, the grid is actually far from resilient. And the so-called “private-public partnership” between FERC and NERC that is supposed to regulate the electric industry – far from working “quite well” (according to Ms. LaFleur) and “quite well” (according to Mr. Cauley) – is actually contributing to its continuing vulnerability, not eliminating it.In fact, the electric utilities are the last major industry to operate under 19th Century regulatory arrangements. Imagine, for example, the airlines, banking system, nuclear power or pharmaceuticals being regulated by their respective trade associations. You would have situations much like we confront with NERC (which actually has responsibility for setting resiliency and security standards; the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s authority has been limited by statute to proposing regulations, not dictating them).In practice, this has meant that, despite the self-congratulatory blather at the Senate Energy Committee hearing, such regulations as are promulgated are late in coming and generally inadequate. For example, three weeks after the Metcalf, NERC inexplicably canceled work on the development of a physical security standard for the utilities. They only got pressure from FERC to resume that effort after the Wall Street Journal broke the story of last April’s close-call.Then, NERC cynically chose to release the draft standard at 7:00 p.m. the night before the Senate hearing. Perhaps that was because, had it been subject to close scrutiny, some Senator might have asked why, as Tom Popik of the Foundation for Resilient Societies has observed, the draft fails to require protection for the control centers that serve 140 million Americans, including many in California whose lights nearly went out – and stayed out – a year ago. FERC had specifically asked for control centers to be included but, when they can only request meaningful standards, rather than require them, what you get is substandard.It would be good if lawmakers really were to seek honest answers to the question of whether enough is being done to keep ensure the reliability and security of the grid. If they take the word of the No Electric Resiliency Cabal, however, the American people are going to be kept in the dark about the existential threat we face due to grid vulnerability.Given the threats from both enemies who understand all too well that vulnerability and from a sun that is due to unleash a devastating solar storm in the foreseeable future, the upshot of keeping us ignorant and, thereby, deflecting public pressure to harden the grid, may just be that we find ourselves kept in the dark permanently.

by Tetyana ShvachukIt was only a matter of time before the inevitable happened and the Russians invaded mainland Ukraine.Despite all the cautions, warnings, and disbelief in the West, Putin has been diligently working on his own plans. His plan is to keep breaking off chunks of Ukraine – and he has nothing to lose and there is nothing to stop him.

Even in Eastern Ukraine, where there's a lot of pro-Russian sentiment, people are terrified of the full-blown Russian invasion and calling for help to stop the Russians whom they have come to call "terrorists."

So far the West has imposed laughable sanctions, which suggest they are not going to get really involved, much like the Georgian war in 2008. This gives a clear green light for Putin to further his own agenda in Ukraine and beyond.In just the past few days, Russian forces, some invisible and some in plain sight, have been aggressively taking control of towns in eastern Ukraine, particularly in Donbas and Lyghansk regions. They are trying to stir up the local population to support the movement to join Russia.The outside perception – one that the Russians have worked very hard to create – is that there is wide support for this movement, but it’s not as strong as many think. Even in Eastern Ukraine, where there is a lot of pro-Russian sentiment, people are terrified of the full-blown Russian invasion and are calling for help to stop the Russians whom they have come to call "terrorists."Tyrchunov, the acting president of Ukraine, has called Russia’s actions an act of terrorism and has set up special anti-terrorists military units. Everyone knows, especially the Russians, that Ukraine does not have much to fight with in terms of military weapons. But if one thing is clear, it’s that the Ukrainians are ready to fight their enemy with whatever they can muster. Audio of a tapped conversation between the Russian forces in Ukraine and their commanders in Russia has just been released, providing further proof of a planned Russian invasion and not a civil war in Ukraine, which is what the Kremlin has been calling it. In the conversation, the leader of the organized military forces was asking his commander for more weapons and backup forces. He also told him that a mission has been successful and that they have wiped out a Ukrainian unit with very high-ranking people, but that he did not know exactly who these people were.The commander reiterated that the whole world is watching, a clear signal not to make any moves that prove too aggressive or too obvious. At the same time, it was obvious from the conversation that Russian forces were giving orders to take over government buildings in Ukraine, rouse fear in local populations, and destroy any Ukrainian counter-terror units.The short-term goal of Russian involvement in Ukraine is to destroy planned talks in Geneva on April 17 between Ukraine, the U.S., EU, and Russia. During these talks, and given ample proof of Russian aggression, Russia would have to admit their wrongdoing. This would be an impossible task for Putin given his belief that Russia can do no wrong and that he is only intervening in Ukraine to protect the Russian population and act as a peacekeeper.We know that this argument is nothing but a bold faced lie. But there is, indeed, even more to Russia’s plan. Putin wants to stop the May 25th Ukrainian presidential election from going forward.

This election signifies the loss of more of the Kremlin’s power in Ukraine – an outcome Putin simply cannot allow.He will push for more violence, he will send in more troops. The Russian military personnel without insignia, the so-called "Green Men" who took over Crimea, are being bussed to Eastern Ukraine as I write.The Crimean plan is unfolding across Eastern Ukraine. And while all this is going on, there is still inaction on the U.S. side as the government tries to find a dialogue that Russia will engage in, a truly fruitless task.Tetyana Shvachuk is a Ukrainian-American political activist and writer. She is CEO of Enlightened Beauty and will be publishing her first book in 2014.Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/16/putin-nefarious-plans-for-ukraine-break-country-apart-dare-west-to-stop-him/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.